GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #1

[jessie]

If the jury convicts on circumstancial evidence he will appeal and most likely win

I have to disagree with this. Appeals are granted if New Evidence is found - and it must be evidence that would change the decision made -not because the Defendant feels the jury made a mistake in their deliberations,

Another cause for appeal is some legal/technical reason. This would only become known at the end of the trial. AOIMO

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thanks for the tweets lore1.

I don't agree that this is difficult to prove. How many people knew about the existence of the tank for starters. Then she has his drugs in her body for months and doesn't know it because she wouldn't be searching for reasons for her tiredness if she did. Then he was at home the day it happened. Then there is a missing note from Helen saying she's leaving when she hadn't left at all, and who would care about killing Boris except a family member who knows she wouldn't go away without him. Then he increases the money she transfers to him same day. Then he stands to benefit financially from her death. Then there is the disposal of their bedding at the tip...I could go on. You don't need a cause of death to prove murder. IMO.

That makes absolute sense. I get nervous about this sort of situation, especially after the Pistorius trial where his pack of lies was believed but I must remember this the the UK not SA.

 

[Alyce]

That makes absolute sense. I get nervous about this sort of situation, especially after the Pistorius trial where his pack of lies was believed but I must remember this the the UK not SA.

I am the same, I always worry that the accused will slip through the net....but then I come on here and read the very rational posts that others put up and I feel reassured !

 

[Nellie Nelson]

Oh dear. If there is no definite cause of death it could let him off the hook even though she was placed in the septic tank. He can be charged with the other points on his charge sheet but hiding a body with no known cause of death (ie it cannot be proved he killed her) can get as little as a year plus something for theft and lying. I do hope it doesn't pan out like this.

Remember the case of April Jones? Her body was never found, [therefore no cause of death could be ascertained] but the police were able to build a case against her killer that resulted in a guilty verdict at trial and whole life tariff imposed

 

[Alyce]

BIB

He has already implicated two other people but we know nothing, as yet, about them and I am sure they don't exist. If they cannot be traced, for whatever reason, it could be difficult to prove (even if it is highly suspicious) that he did in fact place her in the tank. He obviously knew she was in there and he has been very devious on other points and I think there is no doubt he is guilty BUT the law can work in strange ways at times. I hope there are no more hiccups.

Can you answer a question for me please? Can the jurors be directed to find him not guilty of murder because there is no certain cause of death, even though the surrounding story is highly suspicious, or are the jurors allowed to determine the outcome of the trial and ignore this point?

No I dont believe the Judge will tell them to discount murder ( I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise ).

I think what he will do is give them a flow chart which will give options such as;

1. If you believe A and B and C etc etc ......... then you should convict of murder
2. If you are not sure about A and B and C then go to next section.

and the next section will then outline options for manslaughter.

and so on with the lesser charges as well.

I am not 100% on this but it does seem to happen fairly regularly at murder trials nowadays.

 

[Alyce]

I know we had the link for this site earlier on in the thread, but I thought it might be interesting for posters who have only come along recently, and may have missed it.

I was having a read through it again today and noticed something I had not seen first time round. There is someone called Joe on the site.

http://sykic.co.uk/andbeyond/

 

[Cherwell]

If the jury convicts on circumstancial evidence he will appeal and most likely win

The vast majority of murderers are convicted on "circumstantial" evidence. It is not grounds for appeal.
What on earth makes you think he would "most likely win"?

 

[Satchie]

There's lots more evidence to come, for eg perhaps fingerprints on the manhole cover, etc.

I also think there are two ways to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt: either 1. with evidence that shows exactly how the murder happened, ie witnesses, or 2. with evidence that effectively eliminates all other possibilities. Beyond a reasonable doubt means excluding wild speculation such as alien abduction, or mysterious strangers who somehow knew about the cesspit, and for no apparent reason targetted an author and her dog.

I wonder how much he was influenced by knowing about the secret cesspit, being a perfect place to hide a body. Would he have committed the crime if he had to find another place to dispose of it? Did ownership of it set in motion a secret desire to commit and get away with the perfect crime?

 

[jessie]

No I dont believe the Judge will tell them to discount murder ( I stand to be corrected if anyone knows otherwise ).

I think what he will do is give them a flow chart which will give options such as;

1. If you believe A and B and C etc etc ......... then you should convict of murder
2. If you are not sure about A and B and C then go to next section.

and the next section will then outline options for manslaughter.

and so on with the lesser charges as well.

I am not 100% on this but it does seem to happen fairly regularly at murder trials nowadays.

He is up on a charge of murder. If there was any doubt wouldn't the charge be manslaughter?

We must not forget his other charges and I believe as a whole the charge of murder is the only possible outcome bearng in mind the evidence. jmo

 

[Rayemonde]

For anyone else looking for the start of the trial coverage:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...iley-51-Royston-11-April-2016-*Arrest*/page66

 

[cottonweaver]

[h=3]'Stewart had previously been supplied Zopiclone'[/h]On August 17, 2010, Stewart had previously been supplied zopiclone, at a dosage of 7.5mg. He also had the same dosage in June 2005. “In terms of dosage, body weight is taken into account and as a larger person, it seemed to me that the higher 7.5mg would be likely to be more effective than the smaller dose. “7.5mg is a normal dose for an adult.The 3.75mg dose we would use for a really frail or elderly patient.”

catching up on today's witnesses so thanks to you and Tortoise earlier.

as i catch up:
2010 presc leapt out at me. ( first wife's death)
as does plastic bag for suffoc. AND the poor traceability for suffocation for COD in the future
that he may actually claim what i said yest - she ingested them herself?! and even worse
am wondering if he ever planned to leave the house in royston/anticipated selling up within 7 years/ever?

 

[Alyce]

catching up on today's witnesses so thanks to you and Tortoise earlier.

as i catch up:
2010 presc leapt out at me. ( first wife's death)
as does plastic bag for suffoc. AND the poor traceability for suffocation for COD in the future
that he may actually claim what i said yest - she ingested them herself?! and even worse
am wondering if he ever planned to leave the house in royston/anticipated selling up within 7 years/ever?

Evenin Cotton...

I was rambling on earlier about the tablets, re how smart it would be if IS knew that Helen was taking them and he got his own supply in order to overdose her...however, I was forgetting, ( brain overload today ) that Helen was googling to try and find out why she kept falling asleep... So no way could IS pretend she was taking them herself, otherwise she would know why she was falling asleep.....and would have stopped the dosage.

Prescription for IS was two months after wife's death in 2010
..he had also taken them back in 2005

I doubt he planned on leaving the house in Royston. He had succeeded probably beyond all his expectations of ending up in a much larger and more luxurious property than he could have acquired on his own.

 

[LozDa]

How many people knew where the cesspit is? Given the police searched the property and didn't find it doesn't bode well for any suggestion that it was someone else that put them in there.

Aside from the above, I think there's more than enough evidence, we just have to hope there are no mistakes made that lead to a mistrial.

If he gets off, something has gone seriously wrong. I mean has anyone here got any doubts whatsoever?

 

[Interested Bystander]

I am playing catch up today and think I may have missed this. It is something that crossed my mind but is so horrific it is sickening to think about. According to this report the pathologist said it was possible that Helen was not dead when put in the tank. I don't recall this in today's posts but may have missed it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trial-author-could-have-alive-dumped-cesspit/
Dr Cary told the court "It is possible that she was put down the well in an unconscious state and then drowned"

 

[ZaZara]

Oh dear. If there is no definite cause of death it could let him off the hook even though she was placed in the septic tank. He can be charged with the other points on his charge sheet but hiding a body with no known cause of death (ie it cannot be proved he killed her) can get as little as a year plus something for theft and lying. I do hope it doesn't pan out like this.

IMHO what the experts indicated today is that there was no medical or natural cause why HB would have died. No heart disease, no fatal fall from the stairs etc.
The main finding that stands out is the presence of medication taken over a longer period of time. This medication would not kill her either.
Yet she is dead, and she was found in a strange place.

I took up with the thread again when the trial started. Thank you all so much for the updates!

I must say I was shocked - and still am. I had not expected such a degree of premeditation.
Something along the lines of a crime of passion, maybe. But calculation, dating back to heavens know when .... no.

It makes one scared of internet dating. Bereavement can create a bond, and blessed are the couples who found one another after a loss. But bereavement can also be used as a from of disguise. Moving away from the circle of friends to a lonely house the countryside is a bad omen, and both isolation and the choice of this particular house may have been part of the plan.

Can't begin to think what the families and friends are going through right now.

 

[Alyce]

How many people knew where the cesspit is? Given the police searched the property and didn't find it doesn't bode well for any suggestion that it was someone else that put them in there.

Aside from the above, I think there's more than enough evidence, we just have to hope there are no mistakes made that lead to a mistrial.

If he gets off, something has gone seriously wrong. I mean has anyone here got any doubts whatsoever?

The lady who told the police about the cess pit ( hurray ! ) said that the previous owner of the house used to joke to people about the cess pit being the perfect place to hide a body. So I would imagine the neighbours and perhaps friends of the previous owner were aware - plus any prior owners of the property and perhaps any suppliers who had done work at the property.

But it is a huge stretch from there to believe that any one of this small number of people were around on that day, and furthermore had a motive for killing not only Helen but also Boris.

I always have a twinge of worry ( as I said in an earlier post ) re these cases and justice being done, but overall no, I dont think he will get off. I think it will be guilty on all counts. I just hope the Judge gives a decent level of sentence.

 

[Alyce]

I am playing catch up today and think I may have missed this. It is something that crossed my mind but is so horrific it is sickening to think about. According to this report the pathologist said it was possible that Helen was not dead when put in the tank. I don't recall this in today's posts but may have missed it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trial-author-could-have-alive-dumped-cesspit/
Dr Cary told the court "It is possible that she was put down the well in an unconscious state and then drowned"

It is too horrific to think about. Personally, I do think Helen was dead and that the pathologist was just being very thorough and covering himself from every angle. Even though he pointed towards suffocation as being the most likely cause of death, in the absence of any other indications, he did say that ultimately he had to give the cause of death as not determined.
So, by the same token, I presume he had to say there was the possibility of Helen only being unconscious when she was placed in the septic tank.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder why IS gave the names of two people, who he says murdered Helen, and not one. I presume there's a method to his madness. A story he has had time to think up.

I also wonder why he didn't clear Helen's google search history. Or maybe he did and they recovered it.

 

[cottonweaver]

A family friend of HB stated that they do read here and speculation abouit their mothers demise is unsettling

have you a link for this as we had an unverified poster yesterday who AFAIK did not say that ^ I thought she said she is FB friends with them
I appreciate the ethical concerns but accuracy is good too.


ETA - cross post with Alyce, I am still catching up so this has prob already been asked and answered

 

[Duchy]

Me too ^^ Thanks Alyce, Tortoise, Michelle and everyone else for keeping us so well informed. You're all stars. x

Yes thank you from me too. Hello everyone on this thread :lurk: